BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.

HC Deb 26 July 1907 vol 179 cc295-365

Order for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read.

*MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)

moved that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee. He said that although the Bill had passed its Second Heading in the House, when it went to the Committee upstairs it was found on every division that there was very substantial support from all sections of the House against some of the sections of the measure, and he hoped that they would have a final statement that afternoon as to what the view of the Government was in regard to the Bill. The importance of the subject could be realised from the fact that the annual value of the butter trade of this country was over £21,000,000. Pure butter and margarine were only allowed by the existing law to contain 16 per cent. of water. During recent years, owing to the practice of scientific adulteration by certain foreign firms, a new article had been brought into the commerce of Great Britain. It was called by various names but preferably "milk-blended butter." Nobody would deny that that article was a fraudulent article; it was really a water-loaded butter. It had lately been sold under various certificates by enterprising firms, whereby the public were imposed upon. The water-loaded butter was sold with a declaration which conveyed nothing to the average man and woman, much less that they were buying an article which contained 50 per cent. of water, whereas pure butter or margarine contained only 16 per cent. He was sorry to say that the recent Select Committee had more or less provided for the continuance of the sale of this article in the British market. He opposed legislation of this kind, not only on behalf of the agricultural constituency which he represented, but on behalf of all the trade interested in the distribution of pure butter and also of margarine, which was a wholesome substitute for butter. All legislation ought to be passed for the protection of the public at large. He took it that if this measure passed the foreign wealthy capitalists who were behind it would be legally entitled to commit still greater frauds in the future than in the past. Some estimate could be formed of the profitableness of the trade in the past by the fact that the penalties inflicted had in no way acted as a deterrent to the manufacture and sale of the article. The magistrates began by imposing fines of £5 for each offence, but they had been gradually increased to £120 and £30 costs. Still the manufacture and sale went on and the manufacture had grown in prosperity. The Bill was remarkable for many things. The wealthy capitalists behind the Bill seemed to have captured the hon. Baronet in charge of it. It was also remarkable for the fact that it was framed in direct opposition to the expert evidence given by all the permanent officials connected with the Agricultural Department. These men were well-known and had a sense of responsibility, and their reputation for giving reliable evidence before Select Committees was at stake. They declared not only that this milk-blended butter was an illicit manufacture, but that manufacture should be prohibited.

*MR. SPEAKER

said that the hon. Gentleman's argument was good as against the Bill as a whole; but it was not directed against the recommitted of the Bill, which was the only question before the House.

*MR. BARRIE

said he would address himself to that point. The Select Committee of this year seemed to have reported in opposition to the report of a previous Select Committee presided over by the late Mr. Hanbury. The latter Select Committee reported that if this article was permitted to be sold at all it should not contain more than 16 per cent. of water. The whole of the agricultural interest throughout Great Britain and the Irish Agricultural Department were strongly opposed to the provisions relating to milk-blended butter, and so were the trading interests. Parliament was the guardian of the interests of the public, who could not organise opposition to the Bill. He thought that these grounds were all-important and worthy of the consideration of the House, and therefore he moved that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.)

on a point of order asked what arguments were hon. Members to confine themselves to, unless they discussed the merits of the Bill.

*MR. SPEAKER

said he was afraid he could not provide the hon. Member with arguments. If there were no arguments in favour of the recommittal of the Bill, the Amendment should not be moved.

*MR. BARRIE

said there was one further reason why this Bill should be recommitted, and that was that two Select Committees had already sat on this subject and they had differed—one reporting for, another against, and in addition there was a strong body of public opinion against its provisions. The Bill, moreover, would be prejudicial to those who were in favour of pure butter. No legitimate interest would suffer if the Bill were recommitted to a Select Committee.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

seconded the Motion. He considered that it would be most unfortunate if they allowed 24 per cent. of water in milk-blended butter, when only 16 per cent. was allowed in ordinary butter. Everybody knew that milk-blended butter was a faked article. The milk, generally skim milk, was forced through the butter— generally foreign butter—in order to increase its weight. He asked the hon. Baronet why it was that this adulterated and fraudulent article got a special treatment in this Bill? In his opinion its sale should be absolutely stopped in the public interest.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Barrie.)

Mr. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

thought the Government had taken a very serious step. Indeed if they passed the provisions in the Bill, it would be absolutely ruinous to a great Irish industry. The clause to which he took particular exception was that which provided that this fraudulent article might contain 24 per cent. of water, while pure butter and margarine were only allowed 16 per cent. of water. He knew, of course, that the hon. Baronet would say that this particular article would not be called butter when sold. But it would be called butter in hotels and all such places. Why did the Government do this? It was free trade gone mad. They invited foreigners from every part of the world to send into this country an article loaded with water. He invited the hon. Gentleman to drop this particular clause.

THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.)

said it was perfectly clear that they could not discuss the merits of the Bill on a Motion for its recommittal. He under stood the object of the hon. Member for Londonderry, N. was that the Bill should be recommitted to another Select Committee; but he would remind the House that the Bill was founded strictly upon the recommendation of the Select Commission of last session.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

Did the Select Committee recommend you to allow 24 per cent. of water?

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

Yes, unanimously. He urged the House not to agree to the recommittal, but to proceed to the work of considering the provisions of the Bill.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said he wished hon. Members to realise that the recommittal of the Bill meant its destruction for this session. That was obvious. The Bill contained many most excellent provisions, and he suggested that the proper place to discuss the merits of milk-blended butter was on Clauses 4 and 8. If they could convince the House that these clauses were bad, they could be struck out.

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

thought the House ought not to be bound by the decision of any Committee. They were there to judge of all questions submitted to them for themselves and were quite competent to come to a decision upon them quite irrespective of the opinions which any Committee might have expressed in regard to them. He was not opposed to the Bill generally, and he would do his best to assist in passing it into law, but there was, nevertheless, this one fatal blot in it, namely, that this new substance known as milk-blended butter was to be allowed to have a greater percentage

of water in it than ordinary butter or margarine. He could not see why that should be so. If the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill could give the House some assurance —

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is taking the cream off his future argument.

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said he only intended to deal with milk and not with cream. He hoped the hon. Baronet would re-consider the point referred to as to milk-blended butter being allowed to have a greater percentage of water than ordinary butter or margarine.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes, 23; Noes, 233. (Division List No. 327.)

AYES.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Fell, Arthur	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord	Forster, Henry William	Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury. Sir Frederick George	Healy, Timothy Michael	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hills. J. W.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Kimber, Sir Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Liddell, Henry
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES — M r.
Craik, Sir Henry	Parker, Sir Gilbert)Gravesend)	Hugh Barrie and Mr.
Delany, William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington	O'Shaughnessy,
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Duckworth, James
Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Carlile, E. Hildred	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Ashley, W. W.	Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Elibank, Master of
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Evans, Samuel T.
Asquith, Rt.Hon. Herbert Henry	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.	Everett, R. Lacey
Astbury, John Meir	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Cheetham, John Frederick	Field, William
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Flynn, James Christopher
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cleland, J. W.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)	Clough, William	Fuller, John Michael F.
Barker, John	Clynes, J. R.	Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Barnes, G. N.	Cooper, G. J.	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Gilhooly, James
Bell, Richard	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cory, Clifford John	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Berridge, T. H. D.	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Grant, Corrie
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Cox, Harold	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon	Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)	Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Boland, John	Crean, Eugene	Gulland, John W.
Bowerman, C. W.	Crombie, John William	Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton
Branch, James	Cullinan, J.	Halpin, J.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Curran, Peter Francis	Hammond, John
Brigg, John	Dalrymple, Viscount	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford
Burke, E. Haviland-	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Hart-Davies, T.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Harwood, George
Byles William Pollard	Donelan, Captain A.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Cameron, Robert	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Haworth, Arthur A.
Hayden, John Patrick	Marnham, F. J.	Sears, J. E.
Hedges, A. Paget	Massie, J.	Seaverns, J. H.
Helme, Norval Watson	Meagher, Michael	Seddon, J.
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Meehan, Patrick A.	Seely, Major J. B.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Menzies, Walter	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Higham, John Sharp	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Hobart, Sir Robert	Mond, A.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Montgomery, H. G.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hogan, Michael	Mooney, J. J.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Horniman, Emslie John	Morse, L. L.	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Spicer, Sir Albert
Hudson, Walter	Murnaghan, George	Starkey, John R.
Illingworth, Percy H.	Murphy, John	Steadman, W, C.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Myer, Horatio	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Jenkins, J.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Nolan, Joseph	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Joyce. Michael	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Sutherland, J. E.
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Thorne, William
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Kilbride, Denis	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Toulmin, George
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Ure, Alexander
Laidlaw, Robert	O'Malley, William	Verney, F. W.
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	O'Shee, James John	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Lamont, Norman	Parker, James (Halifax)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Paulton, James Mellor	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wardle, George J.
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wason, Rt. Hn. F.(Clackmannan
Lehmann, R. C.	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Raphael, Herbert H.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Lough, Thomas	Redmond, William (Clare)	Whitehead, Rowland
Lundon, W.	Rees, J. D.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton	Wiles, Thomas
Lyell, Charles Henry	Ridsdale, E. A.	Wilkie, Alexander
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott)Bradf'rd)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
MacNeill. John Gordon Swift	Ronaldshay, Earl of	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Callum, John M.	Rose, Charles Day	Yoxall, James Henry
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Russell, T. W.
M'Micking, Major G.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Mr.
Maddison, Frederick	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Markham, Arthur Basil	Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne	Pease.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

moved a new clause to the effect that a name should not be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for use in connection with margarine or milk-blended butter if it referred to or was suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest. He said that in moving this Amendment he thought he was carrying out the wishes of the Committee, because he applied the words of limitation not only to margarine but to milk-blended butter. He therefore trusted that the new clause would be satisfactory not only to the House but to the members of the Committee.

New clause—

"A name shall not be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for use in connection with margarine or milk-blended butter if it refers to or is suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest."— (Sir Edward Strachey.)

Brought up and read a first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he really did not see what this clause did, except to carry out what was already provided for in Clause 8. What it did was already provided for in the Bill, which would enact that no name which included the name of butter should be approved by the Board of Agriculture for butter substitutes. He did not see the use of these words, therefore, unless they were designed to throw dust in their eyes. There was no doubt that they were present at the death of a great industry in Ireland, and he asked for an explanation why the distinction between margarine and milk-blended butter was to be drawn? In reality the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that a fraudulent article might have 8 per cent. more of water than the genuine article, and he asked whether it was fair to the true butter interests that either margarine or milk-blended butter, which walked abroad naked and unashamed, should have a better position under this legislation than the genuine article. Milk-blended butter was made up of the rinsings of all the churns of Europe. He strongly objected to the introduction of margarine into the clause unless the hon. Baronet told him that the proposal was to leave the old name, margarine, alone. The clause, if it was to be of any value at all, should, in his view, be confined to milk-blended-butter. He thought they were entitled to know what name the English and Irish Departments had fixed upon for this new adulterant. Had the Irish Department made up their Hibernian mind as to the name of this misshapen child, and had the English Department made up their minds as to what it should be called? He thought they were entitled to know what the Government were going to call this illegitimate offspring of both Departments.

*MR. BYLES, (Salford, N.)

as a member of the Committee, said he was no friend of the Bill. He did not think it was wanted, but he was astonished at the reception it had met with on coming down from the Grand Committee. He and other members had sat day after day upstairs to consider it, and he was surprised to find that the first Motion made by a gentleman who was a member of that Committee was one to recommit the Bill. Then his hon. friend the Member for North Louth, who was also a member of the Committee, came down and denounced the Bill.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he had never denounced the Bill. What he had said was that it was a good Bill minus this clause.

*MR. BYLES

said the hon. Member had denounced the article which this Bill set out to make legal, although it was a perfectly innocent and pure substitute for butter. Really he thought the proceedings somewhat surprising.

*MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member was not addressing himself to the clause now before the Committee.

MR. BYLES

said that other speakers had alluded to the subject, and he thought he was justified in drawing attention to it. All he wished to point out was that 24 per cent. of moisture or water was not more fraudulent than 1per cent. He was sure the hon. Member would not accuse him of any desire to destroy Irish industries, but he must point out that the Irish salt firkin butter had far more moisture than 24 per cent. He did not see the object of this clause, but, if the House added it to the Bill, he thought they ought to take out the words "milk-blended butter." They were, by the Bill, going to legalise the production and sale of an article which was milk-blended butter, and then it was proposed, by this clause, deliberately to enact that it should not be sold as milk-blended butter or under any name which suggested butter. He thought that was to stultify themselves.

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said it was not often that he agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, but he was glad to be able to agree with him on this occasion. The objection which he took on the Committee stage was taken not to Clause 8, but to Clause 7, which had nothing to do with milk blended butter, but had reference to the marking of wrappers in which margarine was to be sold. What he and others had contended was that the clause as it stood was badly drawn, incomprehensible, and insufficient to carry out the purpose for which it was intended, and one of the reasons why he had objected to it was that there was nothing contained in it to indicate the manner in which the Board of Agriculture should exercise the discretion which was given to them to approve a fancy name to be used in connection with the word "margarine" upon the wrappers, etc., in which it was enclosed. He had himself brought forward a new clause to substitute for Clause 7, and the hon. Baronet had agreed if this were withdrawn to bring forward a new clause of his own to remedy these defects on the Report Stage. The new clause now proposed, taken in conjunction with other Amendments on the Paper in respect to Clause 7 and standing in the name of the hon. Baronet, seemed on the whole sufficient to meet the objections which had been raised to the clause. Under these circumstances, although he preferred his own clause, he was prepared now to withdraw it in favour of that of the hon. Baronet.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell, Tyrone, S.)

pointed out that the sale of milk-blended butter was perfectly legal now without any restriction whatever, and was going on to-day to the great detriment of the butter trade.

MR. BARRIE

said that might be the case, but the fact that it was milk-blended butter must be disclosed on the wrapper.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said it was true that it must be sold with a wrapper on which it was declared that the article was milk-blended, but this Bill placed further restrictions on its sale. In the future it must be distinctly separated from butter altogether, and it must not be sold under any name resembling it. Therefore, so far as the butter trade, who had complained that the sale of this article was a detriment to the butter industry, were concerned, the Bill was a help and not a hindrance. Was the House of Commons prepared to say that an article of food such as milk-blended butter was not to be sold at all? Were they going to tell the working people of this country that whether people wanted it or not milk-blended butter should not be supplied? It was in the interest of the butter trade to put a restriction on this article which came into competition with butter. Every one of the Nationalists on the Committee voted for this, and the only two Irish representatives who voted against it were the hon. Member for North Derry and the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. Clause 8 provided that this article should be sold under a distinct name, and in conformity with the undertaking given to the Committee the Government provided in this new clause that that name should in no way resemble butter.

MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory)

Call it faked butter.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said this Bill placed a restriction on the sale of milk-blended butter. He would prohibit it altogether, because he thought the article was a fraud. Milk-blended butter was butter into which milk had been forced by a spiral machine in order to increase its weight and bulk. When people purchased margarine they knew what they were purchasing. When they bought this milk-blended butter they did not, and he would like that word struck out of the clause.

MR. FLYNN

said it appeared to him there was a good deal of misconception upon this subject. At present the sale of milk-blended butter was legal. It was sold very largely all over the country, and the sale was increasing. It had been proved that the general public did not understand the question of these percentages, and the fact that milk-blended butter contained 45 per cent. of moisture conveyed nothing to their minds. If some restriction was not made the sale would go on. Surely the opinion of the Committee which had devoted two months to a close and laborious study of the question was worthy of some weight. The process was to buy good Colonial butter containing 9 or 10 per cent. of moisture, and then milk was pressed into it and was a source of enormous profit. The Committee after a long discussion came to the conclusion that in butter and margarine there should be 16 per cent. of moisture; that margarine should continue to be sold as margarine, which was a name not in any way suggestive of its being a dairy product. With regard to milk-blended butter they came to the compromise, which would practically kill the trade, that in that article the moisture should be limited to 24 per cent., and that if it was sold it should not be sold as a dairy product of any kind. This new clause which compelled the Department of Agriculture to take a certain course was an honest compromise which met the views of the public on this question, and if the clause was adopted there was no doubt that this trade would perish in a very short time.

*MR. BARRIE

said the desire of the Government was that there should be a particular name for this article. He saw no necessity at all for a third article. There was already butter and margarine, but he recognised that if the Government insisted that the sale of milk-blended butter must be regulated, the important thing was that it should be known by one name only.

MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)

said the question to which the House ought to address itself was whether this clause was likely to benefit agriculture or not. He agreed that it was intended to, but would it in fact benefit the ordinary butter-producer either in England or Ireland? No one denied that milk-blended butter was fraudulent butter. It was colonial butter into which separated or skim milk had been injected. If colonial butter was put upon the market and sold as colonial butter, it would, under this Bill, have to contain no more than 16 per cent. of moisture, and the objection to this fraudulent article was that it was allowed to contain 24 per cent. He thought the promise given to the Committee should be carried out and that this article should be given a name which in no way suggested that it was a dairy product. Would the Government consent to call it bastardine or cow-juice? He thought the hon. Baronet ought to be able to tell the House, after having considered the question for months, what name the Government intended this article should be sold under. People who went into a grocer's shop for it ought to be secured from deception, and the hon. Baronet ought to tell the House whether he had made up his mind what name he was going to give to this fraud.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

expressed the opinion that the matter required a little explanation as to whether the clause really carried out the understanding, having regard to the fact that owing to the way in which it was now put to the House it was separated entirely from Clause 8. So long as it was a proviso to Section (d) it no doubt carried out the understanding, but now it was separated and put into the Bill as a new clause it was very doubtful whether it did.

MR. STEWART (Greenock)

said that both margarine and milk-blended butter were manufactured articles, and they were not fraudulent unless they were sold under a fraudulent name, and the name of margarine did not describe that article at all. Neither did the name of milk-blended butter describe this article, because, in the first place, it was only separated milk that was put back into the churn and not milk. It was only the residue after the butter-fats had been removed. He asked the hon. Baronet if the House carried the 16 per cent. instead of the 24 per cent., whether he, in the interests of the entire community, would include both these articles under the name of margarine.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said the whole question dealt with by this Amendment ought to be dealt with on a future clause of the Bill. As to the question of whether milk-blended butter should be called margarine, the answer was "No," because milk-blended butter was butter with an added percentage of moisture over 16 per cent. If that was reduced to 16 per cent. the effect would be that it would become butter, and under this clause it would be illogical for the Board of Agriculture to call it margarine. He appealed to the House to come to a decision upon the point as to whether the Board of Agriculture should devise a name.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said he thought that there might be some little difficulty in interpreting this clause owing to its phraseology as it at present stood, and suggested that instead of "in connection with" the hon. Baronet should insert the words "now known as," because the words were not quite so plain as the hon. Baronet seemed to think.

*MR. DELANY

thought the House was entitled to ask the hon. Baronet what name he was going to give this article. He ought not to expect the House to give him a blank cheque in the matter. For himself he might say he was not satisfied. As one connected with the agricultural council since its inception he might say they were not against this Bill. They found there were divergent interests in the dairying business in these two countries, and unfortunately there was an unholy alliance between the hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman representing the Agricultural Department of Ireland.

LORD R. CECIL

said the House was entitled to an answer with regard to what was a very serious matter, and he did not think that the Government appreciated the point intended to be raised. If they were to treat the words milk-blended butter in the same sense as margarine it meant that they were not to have a word in addition to the words milk-blended butter. They might have milk-blended butter but not a word in addition. But here they were not doing that; they were going to say, and were in fact saying that they would sell the article as milk-blended butter provided they did not use in addition to milk-blended some word which was suggestive of butter or other dairy produce. Surely that was not intended by the Government. They were using the same word and machinery for margarine and milk-blended butter, though they were two different things. In order to prevent any additional word being used for margarine and for milk-blended butter they wanted to prevent the use of any word excluding the use of milk-blended butter." In spite of the great authority of the Government draftsman he could not help thinking that some alteration was required. He believed that the Bill was much better drafted as it originally stood. If they wished to have a new clause let it deal with milk-blended butter alone.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Ure, Linlithgowshire)

said he could not agree with the noble Lord. He thought that the words clearly expressed what was intended, Throughout the provision the word "margarine," was used, and in addition the words "milk-blended butter."

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said it was distinctly understood in the Committee that the term "milk-blended butter" was never to be used as a description of this now butter-substitute, but that it was to be described by a fancy name to be approved by the Board of Agriculture which did not in any way suggest that the substance was butter or anything resembling butter. To use the term "milk-blended butter'' would certainly suggest that it was butter.

MR. URE

said that if they had a packet of milk-blended butter there might be added another name, but the Committee were anxious that whatever name was used it should not be suggestive of butter in any way. The clause provided that when the Board of Trade approved of a name which was suggested by the trade it should not approve of any name to be added except a name which was not milk-blended butter or a dairy produce.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said the Solicitor-General for Scotland had just given them the effect of the clause. He said that milk-blended butter, according to the intention of the Bill and of the Government was a butter substitute hitherto known as milk-blended butter, and it might be sold with the words milk-blended butter on the wrapper in which it was placed

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

No.

MR. BOWLES

said he had certainly understood the Solicitor-General to say so. He only wanted to know whether that was the intention of the Government, and whether that was the interpretation which they attached to their own Bill; if not, what was the necessity for putting the word "margarine" into the proposed new clause at all? As he understood, the whole intention of the Bill was that milk-blended butter, having a certain amount of moisture in it, should not be presented for sale to the public under any name which would suggest butter. The theory was that it was a fraudulent substitute. Now came the Solicitor-General to tell them that it might be described by other names which were not suggestive of butter, though nevertheless it might be described among other things as milk-blended butter. ["No."] Could anyone representing the Government tell them what it was to be described as? If the substance was not to be described as milk-blended butter what on earth was the meaning of this new clause? The point went to the root of the Bill; it was perfectly ridiculous that there should be any doubt left on the matter, and he earnestly hoped that some hon. or right hon. Gentleman would give some reasonable account of the meaning and intention of the Government in regard to this fundamental point of the whole matter.

SIR EDWIN CORNWALL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

said the clause had been threshed out by the Committee upstairs, and members of that Committee would remember that what Clause 8 referred to was an agreement which they had come to in Committee to make sure that any purchaser buying what was now known as milk-blended butter would have indicated on the packet what he was buying.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Why was not the clause put in upstairs?

SIR EDWIN CORNWALL

said the clause was put in upstairs for the reason he had just stated. This new clause was in substitution of the clause put in upstairs, because, as hon. Members well knew, a clause put in while the Committee was sitting was very often subject to the Minister in charge of the Bill bringing up words which had been prepared by the Government draftsman instead of the words put in by the Committee. He was perfectly content with the words proposed by the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, after his no doubt, though he himself did not see much difference in the words on the Paper that, with the advice at his disposal, the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman was better than the words put in upstairs. With regard to this clause submitted by the hon. Baronet he did not see why they should be so confused about its meaning. It appeared to him simple. The word "margarine" was put in to enable the Board of Agriculture to regulate its sale better than they were able to do at present, because the evidence which came to them last year on the Select Committee was that although margarine was being sold as margarine, yet in a very large number of cases it was sold without the word "margarine" appearing, save in very small print, while the word "churn" or "cream" or "butter" appeared in very large type. He understood that the word "margarine" was put into the clause to protect the purchaser when buying margarine or churn or butter-fat, or any of the fancy names which, although not to be prohibited, were not to be used as they were being used now, in a manner which might deceive the public into thinking they were buying something other than margarine. They had had some cases before them where the word "margarine" appeared on some flimsy sort of paper, on which it was with difficulty seen that the word "margarine" was on the packet at all. This clause was only to enable the Board of Agriculture to see that the purchaser, when buying margarine, although there might be a fancy name attached to it, would have it made quite clear to him that it was margarine. The clause did not do away with fancy names, because one maker of margarine might be entitled to a fancy name for it as a better margarine than that of another maker; but the Board of Agriculture said that, whatever the fancy name selected, it must be so used as to make quite clear it was margarine that was being bought. As to milk-blended butter, the whole object they had had in view upstairs was to see that there was no fraud perpetrated on the public. What they meant by this clause, and what he understood the hon. Baronet meant now, was that the purchaser, in buying what was now milk-blended butter, should have some name given to that article so that he and the public might know they were not buying pure dairy butter. Hon. Members had been asking the Minister in charge of the Bill to state the name. He did not understand that it was to be one name. [Cries of "That is worse."] It might make the matter worse for some hon. Members, but not for those who knew the facts. Anyone who wanted to sell that article to the public under this clause would have to go to the Board of Agriculture with the name which he wished attached to the article, and the name would have to be approved by the Board before he could put it on the packet. He would also have to register the name, while the article would have to be brought under trial by the Board of Agriculture's inspector. Surely that was a step in advance. It might not go so far as some hon. Members would like; still, it was a step in advance, seeing that the article was now sold freely on the market without any regulation whatever. He was not going to argue about the words of the Government draughtsman. He was content to leave them to him and the Minister in charge of the Bill. He thought there was some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the intention of the clause, and if he had been able to throw light on the matter he had attained his object in speaking.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said ho thought the explanation which had been given altered the whole character of the clause. Personally, he understood the clause to mean that in future milk-blended butter was not to boar the name of milk-blended butter. Now they were told that it was to bear an additional name. If that were not so why had the words "in connection with" been inserted? Did that phrase mean "together with"? If so, there was no reason why this milk-blended butter should not continue to be sold. Almost all hon. Members on that side of the House were under the impres- sion that the name of milk-blended butter would remain under the clause, whereas the intention of the Committee was that the name should disappear altogether.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said this clause made it quite clear that milk-blended butter would disappear and would cease to exist as a name except in the Act of Parliament. Once more he desired to assure the House that the name would never appear again if this clause was passed.

MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said that if that was the intention of the clause he did not think the draughtsman had been very successful. In this new clause milk-blended butter was taken as the alternative to margarine, and therefore it was intended that the expression "milk-blended butter should no longer be used; it should be clearly stated that it was not going to be used as an alternative to margarine. What did the words "in connection with" mean? He did not say what the Courts would decide in the matter, but the draughtsman must have meant something by them in order to justify the adoption of the title. At any rate as the clause now stood there was some ambiguity in it which ought to be removed.

*MR. LEIF JONES

said he thought the hon. Baronet must admit that the clause had not been very happily worded to meet the purpose which the House had in view. What they all wanted was that margarine and milk-blended butter should not be sold under any name that would deceive the public. The word "margarine" might be used in future, but he understood that milk-blended butter could not be used. That being so the point of the noble Lord was perfectly sound, because the clause implied that this name might be used. They could easily get out of this difficulty by wording the clause to state exactly what was meant. He suggested that the clause should run "margarine and milk-blended butter shall not be offered for sale under any name that refers to or is suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest."

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

suggested that the Government should consider favourably the proposition which had just been made by the hon. Member for the Appleby Division. The object of the clause was that the public should not be deceived and in the public interest it should be made perfectly clear that people knew exactly what they were buying. With regard to milk-blended butter he was not particularly interested, but a large section of his constituency were interested in the butter trade, and as far as he was concerned he would have opposed this Bill to the bitter end had he not received the most explicit assurance that the Irish salt butter trade would not be injuriously affected by the passage of this Bill.

Clause read a second time.

LORD R. CECIL

suggested to add at the end of the clause the words "nor shall such a name be used as a description of or in connection with milk-blended butter."

MAJOR SEELY

moved that the words "for use in connection with" should be omitted and in place thereof the words "as descriptive of the substances now known as" inserted. The advantage of that was that it would be much shorter than the words the noble Lord had suggested, and it would get rid of the words "in connection with." His suggestion would really make the matter perfectly plain and there could be no possible mistake. That would meet the view of the noble Lord, because milk-blended butter would disappear.

MR. LEHMANN (Leicestershire, Market Harborough)

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, to leave out the words 'for use in connection with,' and insert the words 'as descriptive of the substance now known as.' "—(Major Seely.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new clause."

SIR E. STRACHEY

said it appeared to be the desire of the House that some alteration should be made in this clause. It was impossible to accept the words which had been suggested, because there was already in the Bill a description of what milk-blended butter was. If the hon. Member for the Abercromby division would withdraw his Amendment he would undertake that when the Bill went to another place an Amendment would-be moved to insert the words "as descriptive of" after the word "or" in line 2 of the clause.

LORD R. CECIL

said the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member would scarcely meet the case, because it would still leave margarine and milk-blended butter on the same footing. His own proposal was to separate the two, and deal with them by separate Amendments. He did not think the words suggested by the hon. Baronet were very satisfactory. He might be unduly attached to his own suggestion, but he thought that the words "milk-blended butter" should be taken out from the place where they now appeared in the clause, and that milk-blended butter should be dealt with by a separate Amendment at the end of the clause.

SIR E. STRACHEY

said there was really no difference between the noble Lord and himself. He was quite willing to undertake after consultation with him to see that words were introduced when the Bill went to another place to carry out what he desired.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY

expressed the hope that the Government would accept the words proposed by the noble Lord. They had been asked to leave this matter over for the present, but it should be remembered that this was the second time they had been asked to leave it over. When the Bill was in Committee they were asked to leave it over to the Report stage.

MAJOR SEELY

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had given notice of an Amendment to omit the words "as milk-blended butter or" in the second line of Subsection 2 of Clause 8. What was the object of omitting those words? He had already pointed out that the clause, as he understood it, practically meant that the Government might abolish altogether the word "margarine." [An HON. MEMBER: No.] That was the construction which it might receive. In the eighth clause the words "name or names" were used, whereas the House was misled to-day by the use of the words "A name" in the new clause He would like to know if in future there was to be only one name for these fraudulent articles. He would like to know why the hon. Baronet had not in the new clause followed the words in Clause 8. Suppose that instead of calling it milk-blended butter, he for the moment called it "bosh." He understood from what was said by an hon. Gentleman below the gangway that any fraudulent faker of butter could use for his own speciality a particular name instead of the good old English word "butter." There might be 400 or 500 different names, and the public would not know what they were getting. The hon. Baronet had made the suggestion that words would be put in the clause when the Bill went to another place. This was a question for the people, and the Amendment ought to be made now. It was really very hard to know what the intentions of the Government were. If there was a difficulty in finding the proper phrase on the spur of the moment, let them agree that this clause should be recommitted on the Third Reading. It was really a serious matter. This was the third or fourth session in which Conservative and Liberal Governments had tried to deal with the question. It was most unfair in dealing with an article of such enormous importance for the hon. Baronet to propose that the duties of this House should be handed over to "another place."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD E. CECIL

said the new clause with his Amendment added. would read as follows— A name shall not be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for use in connection with margarine if it refers to or is suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest nor shall such name be used as descriptive of, or in connection with, milk-blended butter.

He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, to leave out the words 'or milk-blended butter.' "— (Lord R. Cecil.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new clause."

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

I have already intimated that the views of the noble Lord and myself are in agreement, and I at once accept that, subject to any alteration that may be necessary

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said there would be considerable doubt as to the construction of the clause as proposed to be amended. The suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth was far better. The two substances were entirely distinct, and the reason for the confusion which the House had got into was that an attempt had been to deal with them both in one clause.

Clause as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. BARRIE

said he wished to move on Clause 1, line 13, to leave out "milk," and insert "water."

*MR. SPEAKER

said that the House had just passed a clause that a name should not be approved of for use in connection with margarine or milk-blended butter if it referred to, or was suggestive of, butter or anything connected with the dairy interest. The Amendment which the hon. Member proposed would violate that clause.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

moved an Amendment to meet the case of an establishment with two sets of premises—the one a butter factory proper, and the other a creamery.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 25, to leave out the words 'other premises,' and to insert the words 'premises other than a butter factory.' "— (Sir Edward Strachey.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he wanted to know why this consideration was given to a creamery. It seemed to him that a creamery was the very place of all others which required inspection.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries had power to send specially authorised inspectors to inspect creameries, as the premises were registered.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that under Clause 3 it was optional to inspect creameries, but in the case of butter factories the inspection seemed to be compulsory. Now that they were legalising milk-blended butter, he believed that fraudulent creameries would start up all over the country. Why should not a creamery be dealt within the same way as a butter factory? Surely both were engaged in the manufacture of butter. It would be a case of butter factories and creameries saying to the public: "Codlin's your friend, and not Short; try our old creamery butter, and not the factory butter." Without casting any aspersion on the creameries of the past, why should creameries of the future have an advantage over the butter factories? Of course his view would be met at once if all the makers of butter and margarine whether in factories or in creameries were put upon the same footing. He would recall to the House the views of the Committee appointed by the Conservative Government, which consisted, among others, of Sir Horace Plunkett and the hon. Member for Devonport. That Committee of butter experts, eleven in number, reported in 1902 that in the course of their inquiry they had been informed that the incorporation of water with butter in order to increase its weight was at one time extensively practised in Hamburg and Holland, and in a modified form that practice was now in operation in this country; and a considerable quantity of material was blended with what was called milk, containing 24 or 25 per cent. of water. The Committee recommended the adoption of a limit of 16 per cent. of water in the preparation of butter and margarine. He admitted that the subject was a most difficult one, and that many interests had to be met; but he insisted that if they compelled butter factories to undergo inspection, creameries should be put on the same basis and level. The hon. Member for South Tyrone was now on his trial, because he had said on the previous day that he would stand up even against the Treasury, and squeeze all he could out of the Treasury. What they asked him to do was to squeeze this "bosh" butter, and take the water all out of it.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that creameries could be inspected if the Board of Agriculture suspected that any illegal process was being carried on in them. He strongly urged his hon. and learned friend not to press his argument too far, for if he read the evidence he would find that it was in the interests of Ireland, or of parts of Ireland, that these regulations were put in.

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

moved the adjournment of the debate. He said that they had now reached the most important part of the measure, the part dealing with the percentage of water to be allowed in milk-blended butter. They had been sitting from twelve o'clock to half past six, and he thought they should bring fresh minds to the consideration of what was really the gist of the whole opposition to the Bill.

MR. ASHLEY

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."— (Sir Francis Lowe.)

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John-Burns, Battersea)

said he felt quite sure that the plea put forward by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion was not a sufficient justification for it. He therefore hoped that it would not be persisted in. The discussion on the Bill had proceeded harmoniously, and he was sure the general feeling of the House was in favour of going on. He was convinced that the consideration of the Bill should not now take more than an hour or two, although he hoped that it would take less.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that the discussion of the Bill would take less time if the representative of the Board of Agriculture would state his policy. The progress of the Bill depended upon the manner in which the Minister in charge met reasonable Amendments without wasting time. They had been hammering at him for two hours in regard to one Amendment which he said he could not accept, and at the conclusion of two hours he accepted the proposal of the noble Lord. Having done that now, he looked as if butter would not melt in his mouth. All margarine and bosh butter should, in his opinion, be put on the same footing. Why should a Liberal Government stand up for fraud and resist the proposal that margarine and bosh butter should be put on the same footing? There was no reason why the Bill should take any considerable time if the Minister in charge of it would meet them in the matter. He would point out that the House of Lords would be on their side, because the House of Lords were not in favour of bosh butter, and, so far as he knew, it was not a principle of the Conservative Party. The Minister in charge had the whole matter in his own hands, and all he had to do was to put margarine and bosh butter on an equal footing—16 per cent. of water for both.

MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)

thought that they ought to have some indication of the name which the Board of Agriculture intended should be applied to this substance of milk-blended butter. He had come to the conclusion that "Milkerine" would not be a bad name for it. [An Hon. Member: It should be "Waterine."] For his part so long as the Government were content to call it "Milkerine" he did not think anyone would care whether it contained 30, 40, 50, 60, or even 90 per cent. of water.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

suggested that the compound should be called ''frauduline."

*MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member was not entitled to discuss matters of that sort, as the only question before the House was the question of the adjournment of the debate.

LORD R. CECIL

hoped the Government would accede to the Motion for the adjournment. It was not reasonable that they should ask them to sit after half-past six on a Friday evening, and also on Saturday and he supposed on the Sunday as well. For himself he had lost account of the Bills read out by the Prime Minister, and he did not think the Government was treating the House of Commons in a fair way.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

hoped that even if the Government did not accept this motion for the adjournment they would not after the conclusion of the proceedings of this Bill bring on any other work and set up a fresh Bill on a Friday afternoon.

MR. BOWLES

wished to know how long the Government contemplated keeping the House sitting on a Friday evening with a Saturday sitting in view. If the Government were determined to keep them there hour after hour, and day after day, in view of the fact that the minority was a very small body but had a considerable amount of work cast upon them, it did not seem unreasonable to ask how long the Government intended to keep them in the House over this Butter and Margarine Bill. He understood they did not intend to accept the Motion for the adjournment, and under the circumstances he did not think it was too much to ask them to give some vague idea of the measures which they intended to discuss that evening.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 328.)

AYES.
Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Cavendish.Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.	Crean, Eugene
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Dalrymple, Viscount
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)	Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Bowles, G. Stewart	Chamberlain.Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.	Forster, Henry William
Boyle, Sir Edward	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Craik, Sir Henry	Gilhooly, James
Gretton, John	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)	Valentia, Viscount
Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford	Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Walker,Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Healy, Timothy Michael	Ronaldshay, Earl of	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Lambton, Hon. FrederickWm.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Tellers for the Ayes—Sir
Murnaghan, George	Starkey, John R.	Francis Lowe and Mr.
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Ashley.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Hazleton, Richard	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Hedges, A. Paget	Power, Patrick Joseph
Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)	Helme, Norval Watson	Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Higham, John Sharp	Radford, G. H.
Astbury, John Meir	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)	Hogan, Michael	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Horniman, Emslie John	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Hudson, Walter	Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
Barnes, G. N.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Bell, Richard	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Russell, T. W.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Jenkins, J.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Berridge. T. H. D.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Boland, John	Jones. William (Carnarvonshire	Sears, J. E.
Bowerman, C. W.	Joyce, Michael	Seaverns, J. H.
Branch, James	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Seddon, J.
Brigg, John	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Seely, Major J. B.
Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)	Laidlaw, Robert	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Lamont, Norman	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Byles, William Pollard	Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cameron, Robert	Lewis, John Herbert	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cheetham. John Frederick	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzi
Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R.	Lundon, W.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Cleland, J. W.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Clough. William	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Clynes, J. R.	Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E Grinst'd	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.	MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)	Sutherland, J. E.
Cory, Clifford John	MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)	Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset,E
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Thorne, William
Craig,HerbertJ.(Tynemouth)	M'Killop, W.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Cullinan, J.	M'Micking, Major G.	Toulmin, George
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Maddison, Frederick	Ure, Alexander
Delany, William	Marks.G. Croydon(Launceston)	Verney, F. W.
Devlin, Joseph	Marnham, F. J.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Donelan, Captain A.	Massie, J	Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds,S.)
Duckworth, James	Meagher, Michael	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Mechan, Patrick A.	Wardle, George J.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Menzies, Walter	Wason,Rt.Hn.E. (Clackmannan
Elibank, Master of	Mond, A.	Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney)
Evans, Samuel T.	Montgomery, H. G.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Everett, R. Lacey	Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Field, William	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	White, Patrick (Meath, Nort)
Findlay, Alexander	Murphy, John	Whitehead, Rowland
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax
Fuller, John Michael F.	Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r	Wiles, Thomas
Gardner,Co.lAlan(Hereford,S.)	Nolan, Joseph	Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Williamson, A.
Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn	O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gulland, John W.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Halpin, J.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Hammond, John	O'Grady, J.	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Parker, James (Halifax,)	Pease.
Harwood, George	Paulton. James Mellor
Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Philipps,Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said the object of the Amendment he now proposed was to make the limit of 16 per cent. of water which applied under the Bill to butter and margarine apply also to this new and somewhat equivocal substance which was recognised for the first time under this Bill as milk-blended butter. He was utterly at a loss to understand why milk-blended butter should be allowed to have 24 per cent. of water in it, whilst butter and margarine should only be allowed to have 16 per cent. of water in them, or why the addition of 24 per cent. of water should be considered to be adulteration in the one case and not in the other. The addition of so much water to milk would certainly not be allowed, and the milk-seller who attempted to doctor his milk in that way would certainly be had up before the magistrates and fined heavily for his pains. The whole object of this Bill was to protect the people against fraud and to insure that every article purporting to be butter or any substance analogous to butter was in reality that which it was represented to be when it was sold. He could not conceive of anything that was more calculated to open the door to fraud and make easy the path to adulteration than a provision of this kind. It simply meant that a person who sold butter would be able to load up his butter with water to such an extent that it would weigh a great deal heavier, and although on the face of it it would appear to be a great deal cheaper than ordinary butter, the purchaser would in reality have to pay a good deal more for the actual butter it contained, because it would contain 50 per cent. more water than the genuine article. It was said that a considerable demand for this class of butter existed amongst the poorer classes, because it suited their purpose and was cheaper than ordinary butter. He did not know whether this demand really existed or not, but even if it did it ought not to be legitimised or encouraged, as these poor people were deluded into believing they were getting it at a lower price, whereas a great part of the price they were paying was for water and not for butter at all. Further-more, he might point out that if any of their people desired to have an admixture of butter and water, it was open to them to buy a smaller quantity of butter and mix it with water for themselves. This Bill itself amounted to a deception and a fraud because throughout the whole of its clauses the term "milk-blended butter" was invariably applied to a substance which was not milk-blended butter at all but merely water-blended butter.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,

in seconding the Amendment, said he failed to see why this milk-blended butter should be allowed to have 24 per cent. of water and ordinary butter only 16 per cent. He would like to know what induced the hon. Baronet to agree to the figure of 24 per cent. of water as the standard for milk-blended butter, while for ordinary butter he only allowed 16 per cent. It was a monstrous thing that such a standard should be allowed and if he had the power he would do away with milk-blended butter altogether, because he regarded it as a fraudulent article.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 13, after the word 'factory,' to insert the words 'or if any milk-blended butter, which, when prepared for sale or consignment, contains more than 10 per cent. of water, is on any premises registered under this Act.' "—(Sir Francis Lowe.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said that at last they had come to what had been constantly referred to as one of the greatest objections to the Bill. The House had now to decide whether they wished to prohibit milk-blended butter altogether or to restrict the sale of it. At the present moment the sale of milk-blended butter was perfectly legal. He was surprised, when he heard the hon. Member for North Louth denounce it in no unmeasured terms, that the Government had not had his help on the question of the sale of milk-blended butter during the last six or seven years. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman not only wished to prohibit its sale altogether, but also, as he had said "the old fraud, margarine." He could not help thinking that there were others who desired to prohibit the sale of milk-blended butter because it would help to prohibit the sale of "the old fraud, margarine." The whole question now was the prohibition or the restriction of the sale of milk-blended butter, because all would agree that its unrestricted sale was a fraud. The arguments put forward in favour of prohibition were, first of all, by grocers throughout the country, that the grocers did not desire to have a third article of this character in their shops. He ventured to think that that was not an argument which the Government ought to consider. They ought in the interests of the country to see that so long as they were properly protected the public should have a right to buy a cheap article suitable to their needs. The Mid. Rhondda Grocers' Association passed a resolution to the effect that to allow the extra 8 per cent. of moisture would be unfair to the retailer. But that again was not in the interests of the public, and if the Government saw that the public were properly protected and that they had the opportunity of buying butter and did not care for margarine, then he thought they should have an opportunity of buying milk-blended butter if they so desired. Then they were told that milk-blended butter was an article of no food value. It was admitted that separated and skim milk had not the same food value as whole milk and that would also apply to skim milk cheese, which was not of the same food value as a cheese made from whole milk or cream. But was it to be said that people who were not able to buy whole milk or cream cheese were to be prohibited from buying separated milk or skim cheese? What was the position that had to be taken up if the House agreed with the view he put forward, that so long as a man knew what he was buying, so long as the public were not deceived, they had a right to buy any article of food so long as it was wholesome and not so described as to deceive them? The position was this, that the public were buying milk-blended butter under the impression that it was another form of butter, and in some cases they believed they were buying something better than ordinary butter because this butter had been returned. The House now had to consider the two alternatives prohibition or restriction and limitation of sale. What this Bill did was to decide that it was impossible to prohibit the sale of a wholesome commodity so long as people knew what they were buying. The Government had been fort-fied in that opinion because the Select Committee on the Butter Trade which sat for a considerable period and heard a great deal of evidence upon the question came to the conclusion that this milk-blended butter should only be allowed to be sold under another name to be approved by the Board of Trade. That recommendation was embodied in the Bill. That Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be right to recommend the prohibition of the sale of this article. Let there be no cant about this matter. When hon. Members wanted to reduce the moisture from 24 per cent. to 16 per cent. those who knew anything about it knew that that was prohibition, because when the moisture was reduced to 16 per cent. milk-blended butter became simple butter. The only difference between butter and milk-blended butter was that one had 16 per cent. and the other more than 16 per cent. of moisture. It was a mere question of moisture. The Standing Committee had taken the same view as that which had been taken by the Select Committee on the Butter Trade and had retained in the Bill the proviso restricting and limiting but not prohibiting the sale of this article. The Central Chamber of Agriculture discussed the question at their meeting in March or April, and after a long discussion decided by a small majority to retain the 24 per cent. of moisture as against the 16 per cent. The Central Chamber of Agriculture came to that conclusion, because as sensible men they knew they could not ask for protection in this way and that the 16 per cent. meant absolute prohibition. No doubt all agriculturists if they considered these matters only from the point of view of their own selfish interests would like to see both milk-blended butter and margarine prohibited, and it was satisfactory to find agriculturists insisting in the Central Chamber of Commerce that all they could do was to pass resolutions that milk-blended butter should be called by a name which had nothing to do with, and which would not be suggestive of butter. Not only did the Central Chamber of Agriculture pass resolutions approving the Bill, but the British Dairy Farmers' Association also a few months ago unanimously passed resolutions approving the Bill and expressing a hope that it would pass.

MR. ASHLEY

They wanted the Bill, but did not want this particular proviso.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said he was president of the association and was present at the meeting of the council when the resolution was passed. He himself told them that if they opposed the resolution the Bill would go through with the 24 per cent. of moisture, and they then declared they would have the Bill as it was.

MR. ASHLEY

Naturally they would rather have this than nothing.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

Not at all. He had great faith in the Dairy Farmers' Association, and if they had thought it was necessary not to have this Bill they would have said so. They saw that under the Bill they would derive great advantage. Then the question was brought before the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association at the instance of the Cheshire County Council, who desired that association to object to milk-blended butter, and ask for prohibition by reducing the percentage of moisture to 16 per cent. The Parliamentary Committee replied that they were not in favour of the resolution of the Cheshire County Council, and that the reduction of moisture to 16 per cent. would be equivalent to prohibition. The Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association knew exactly what was meant by such a suggestion. The recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee came before the County Councils Association only a few days since, and the association unanimously accepted the Report of the Committee. The County Councils Association could not be said to be prejudiced in this matter except in so far as it was their duty to look after the public health. They considered that this substitute for butter could be sold under a name, which proved that they did not consider in the interest of the public health that there was anything wrong being done. They were quite clear on one thing, and that was that there ought to be no prohibition. What did it all come to? It came to this, that they asked that in future milk-blended butter, although it would be allowed to be sold, should no longer be sold as milk-blended butter or described by any name at all that had anything to do with butter; and, further, that it should only be sold in a wrapper, and only be described by a name on any wrapper or in any advertisement, which name must be approved by the Board of Agriculture; and the Board were not to approve of any name or description which suggested butter. It would be perfectly in the power of the Board of Agriculture to have a wrapper on which notice was given of the exact amount of water that was contained in the mixture. The Board of Agriculture would do their duty fully in the matter, and would see that the substance was described in such a way that the customer could not be deceived as to the article he was purchasing. In future this substance known as milk-blended butter would only be sold under some proprietary name approved by the Board of Agriculture. He hoped that the House would be satisfied with what the Bill proposed. It would do justice between the two interests, and the working classes of the country would not be deprived of the food they desired. If they were unable to pay for an article so expensive as butter they would, at the same time, be absolutely protected by the fact that milk-blended butter could only be sold under a name which had nothing to do with butter.

*MR. DUCKWORTH (Stockport)

said he was sure that the House would congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ability with which he had spoken on the case. He was not in opposition to the Bill as a whole. He was in favour of the Bill with the exception of this one clause. He would be very sorry personally, and he knew that those for whom he spoke would also be very sorry, if the Bill were dropped. But he was very strongly opposed to any favour being given to what was known now as milk-blended butter, and especially that it should have an advantage over margarine and butter. He spoke with an experience of nearly forty years in the butter trade. The firm to which he belonged had in the North of England nearly 100 branches, where butter was sold day by day. But he had behind him also the whole of the trade of the North of England, both wholesale and retail. There was hardly a single association connected with the trade that was not in favour of this article being brought on to a level with margarine and genuine butter. He presided at an enthusiastic meeting on Tuesday last at Manchester on the question. There were delegates attending that meeting from the port of Hull, Glasgow, and many other places in the North of England, and the following resolution was unanimously and enthusiastically passed— That this meeting is thoroughly of opinion —Firstly, that milk-blended butter, under whatever name it may be called, should not contain more moisture than either butter or margarine. Secondly, that the introduction of this article, containing as it does 50 per cent. additional moisture, will be harmful to the producing and distributing interests, and is really, more or less, a deception on the consuming public. Thirdly, that as Acts of Parliament already prohibit the addition of more than a certain percentage of butter fat to margarine, the wilful addition of water to butter should also be prohibited. He had received a letter that morning stating that the Co-operative Wholesale Society in Manchester, representing 1,200 co-operative societies, were in agreement with the resolution. But it was said that traders were afraid of competition. That had been said in Committee and had been said also in the discussion that day. Nothing could be further from the truth than a statement of that kind. If the country were flooded with this faked article, as it would be if 8 per cent. additional moisture were allowed, the trade would have to handle it, and they all knew that the profit on a substitute was greater than on the genuine article. So that they had nothing to fear from an article of that kind. Their opposition was based on the certainty that the sale of this stuff would lend itself to fraud, and the victims would be largely the poor and ignorant. It was all very well for hon. Members to say glibly that people knew what they were buying, and why should they prohibit it. But the people did not know what they were buying, especially when those they were dealing with were trying to deceive them. The promoters of the Bill said: "Oh, we wilt give it a name that will kill it." His reply to that was: "Why create a thing in order to kill it?" They would not kill it. If it was made the colour and shape of butter they might call it "Butterine" or "Waterine" or anything else; the people would buy it, and thousands would buy it for genuine butter. He was amazed at the persistency with which this Bill was being pushed. There was something behind it that did not appear on the surface. It had been publicly stated that if this part of the Bill passed, and it became legal to add 24 per cent. moisture to this article, a huge trust would be formed with any amount of capital behind it, and the thing would be pushed to the exclusion of all other kinds of butter or margarine throughout the length and breadth of the country. Only those who were familiar with the trade knew in what numerous ways. an article like this might be pushed. Names might be given to it, if they allowed the use of names, and it might be put in different shapes in order to deceive the public. He would like to ask the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture and the hon. Baronet who represented him in that House how they liked the contemplation of such a possibility. How would their friends the farmers, who liked to sell a genuine butter and get a fair price for it, fare under these circumstances? It was said that it was only a small matter. But he thought it would be found to be a very vital matter to the farmers of the country if the market were flooded with this butter substitute. He was sure that the promoters of the Bill did not want to encourage the clever fellow who could make water stand on end and sell it at 10d. or 1s. a pound. But that was what they were doing. Forty to 50 per cent. of moisture, he was told, had been found in this faked article; yet they said it was legal. Fines had been inflicted, but like the street bookmaker they paid the fines, smiled, and went on selling the stuff. They could easily do that because of the enormous profit they were making. But they were about to say to these defrauders of the public: "You shall not be allowed to put 40 or 50 per cent. of water in this article, but we will allow you 24 per cent.," which was 8 per cent. more than was allowed in margarine or genuine butter. That was a curious method of giving preference. By law they already prevented makers of margarine from putting more than 10 per cent. of butter in the manufacture of that article, professedly to prevent its being sold as butter; but here they wore going to allow an extra 8 per cent. of water, instead of 40 or 50 per cent., in the hope that it would not be sold as butter. To borrow an illustration from one of the speakers on Tuesday—the Government might just as well strike off a number of gold coins exactly like a sovereign, but worth only 18s. each, and expect that no one would pass them as real sovereigns. They were told that milk-blended butter was a cheap and harmless article of food, and that on free trade principles they had no right to prevent its being sold. He had a letter which rendered this very clearly, and knocked the bottom out of the argument altogether. He denied that it was cheap or harmless. The added water made the article dear. Poor people, to whom it was sold in the greatest quantities, did not reckon so much per cent.; they knew nothing about that, and therefore they were deceived. It took the place of butter fats, and it was a fraud on the purchaser. He could give the House an example of the effect this proposal would have upon Lancashire operatives. They took their breakfast largely from bread and butter which was prepared either the night before or at 5.30 in the morning, and it was taken to the mill in a handkerchief or tin and had to be kept several hours in a room in which the atmosphere varied between 80° and 90° Fahrenheit. By supplying them with an article containing so much moisture they were being deceived and were not getting a proper amount of nourishment from it. They heard a great deal about physical degeneration, but this was one of the things which was increasing that danger. They were told on the Committee that they had no right to interfere with the food of the people, but he was strongly opposed to any advantage being given to milk-blended butter over margarine and genuine butter. He was sure the Government did not really wish to encourage fraud in the sale of this or any other article of food.

*MR. A. H. SCOTT (Ashton-under-Lyne)

said it was not inappropriate that one grocer should follow another in the debate, but he wished to state clearly that in this matter, unlike the Member for Stockport, he held no brief for the trade. Those who knew the severe competition that existed in regard to this particular article would understand why the grocers' associations in various parts of the country were up in arms against milk-blended butter. He remembered the time when the grocers were quite as antagonistic to margarine as they were now to milk-blended butter, but all that opposition had disappeared now because margarine had become a more profitable article over the grocers' counter than pure butter. He believed there were still some grocers who never sold an ounce of margarine and might reasonably advocate the doing away with it altogether. Those who had watched the rapid growth in the sale of milk-blended butter would see at once the reason why there was a prejudice against it. He cross-examined every man who gave evidence on this point before the Committee with the direct object of getting some admission that milk-blended butter was an unwholesome article, and he failed to get any such admission. Other hon. Members also failed in this respect, and there was nothing in the big book of evidence which had been published to the effect that it was an unwholesome article. The only evidence on this point was that if they took milk-blended butter into the hot factory or put it into the oven it would not keep fresh so long as Danish or Irish butter. He contended that at the present time nine-tenths of the milk-blended butter sold was sold fraudulently. People who bought milk-blended butter believed that it was made from the milk without any separation taking place, and they thought it was a better article than the ordinary butter. There was evidence to show that the public appreciated this article. What was the position? There was evidence that the public demanded this article, but there was no evidence that it was an unwholesome article. Were they going to say, "We do not care what may be the weight of evidence; it is disagreeable to the grocers, and for that reason we are not going to allow the public to demand it"? He contended that there was a question of free trade involved. [Voices, "Oh, no."] To stop an article being sold which was not unwholesome and for which there was a public demand was surely a violation of free trade doctrine. He contended that the opposition which had been aroused on this question was needless. If under the Bill milk-blended butter was called by a name which was not associated with butter and had no connection with butter they could rest assured that not only would its sale cease to increase but it would result in eventually stopping the sale altogether of milk-blended butter.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

asked if the Board of Agriculture intended that the wrappers in which this stuff was sold should give notice to the public of the amount of water in the mixture.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

indicated assent.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he had done his best to help Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes and Mr. Han bury, but the hon. Baronet was the first person who had ever put milk-blended butter into a Bill. He was the first person who had linked the name of the Liberal Party with fraud. And if he wanted a name for this, instead of "Perfecto" he would suggest "Liberalismo." Mr. Hanbury proposed. 20 per cent. in 1903, and the House came to the conclusion that the proposal would open the door rather too much for fraud. Accordingly, Mr. Hanbury's Bill was objected to and stopped. Mr. Fellowes brought in another Bill in 1904 to the same effect. Until the hon. Baronet introduced the phrase "milk-blended butter" into this Bill, nobody had ever heard of this monstrosity before. For what purpose did he introduce it? The hon. Baronet said it was for the purpose of extirpating it, although milk-blended butter had never been heard of before.

MR. ANNAN BRYCE (Inverness Burghs)

said the term "milk-blended butter" had been used for many years.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he was speaking ing of Statutes and Bills. He knew that the phrase existed before, but it had not received statutory recognition. The hon. Member for Stockport in his able speech had pointed out that when they were dealing with margarine, they were dealing with a manufactured product. It was simply made of butter fats. The fats were genuine, and the fraud in margarine was the endeavour to pass it off for butter; but in the case of milk-blended butter a genuine article of admitted value was taken, and there was added water, and then it was said they had made a new and special article. It was a thing similar to that for which coiners were convicted at the Old Bailey. If he took a sovereign and added 10 per cent. of pewter to it, did it not look as well? Could he not palm it off as well? What crime had he committed? Only robbed the King. It was a crime to rob the King, but they might rob poor people. Let him deal now with the fraudulent phrase "milk-blended," because certainly the adoption of that phrase by the hon. Baronet gave him special distinction. It was not "milk-blended butter." They were dealing with water-blended butter—aquatic butter. Who knew whether any milk was added to the butter? 24 per cent., or nearly a quarter of it, might be water in future. Why not call it water-blended butter? Why should it be dignified with the name of milk? There was, in his opinion, something behind the advocacy and the extraordinary tenacity with which the phrase had been adhered to by the hon. Baronet. It was said that this was free trade. If that was so, then all he could say was, "God help free trade." He was neither a free-trader nor a protectionist; he was an Irishman. He would always fight for what was good for his country, and against that which injured her, no matter under what label it might be described. A fourth of the butter which was to be sold to the people as pure butter was only aqua pura. For aught that he knew the people of this country might have this imposed on them as pure butter. It was extraordinary that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire asked the hon. Baronet to give a pledge that the amount of water should be placed upon the label all that he got in reply was a nod. Nods did not appear in Hansard.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think the hon. Baronet distinctly said ''Yes." across the Table. There ought to be no mistake about it.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

I think I nodded assent. Clause 8 says— … there shall, in addition to the approved name, be printed on the wrapper in such manner as the Board approve, such description of the article as may be approved by the Board.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said Jove nodded to some purpose, but it appeared to him that the hon. Baronet's nod meant nothing, because while he conveyed to the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire that the amount of moisture would be stated on the wrapper, it now appeared that all that was required was that a description of the article should appear on the wrapper. If it was an honest article why should the Government be ashamed of it? If it was to be baptised in pure water, why should they not declare the amount of the "fontage" that appeared on the label? The hon. Baronet was alone in his preference for water, for teetotal butter. If 24 per cent. was an admirable thing for the food of the people, why should not 48 per cent. be good for them? Why was the man who added 24 per cent. of water to butter to be considered a religious man, and the man who added 25 per cent. a sanctimonious impostor? If he were to give a description of the hon. Baronet or of any of the Rosebery Party that had found their way into the Government, he would say that it was "24 per cent. of added water to Liberalism." But the House had arrived at the time when it was entitled to hear from a serious representative of the Government what was its position as to this question. The House had been kept sitting by their minor underlings, by men who had never enjoyed any weight, authority, or confidence in the House. At all events, he was entitled to say that, as to an enormous trade which the Irish people had with this country, a fraudulent article was for the first time to be palmed off on the consumers. They were told that this substance would do nobody any harm. He quite believed that there was nothing harmful in taking water with butter, but that was not the point. The point was whether a man who sold butter was injured by another who competed with him by selling an article of which a quarter was fraudulent. Though milk blended butter did not harm a man' stomach, did the sale of it not open the way for fraud? If in a poor district a little child was sent out with 1s. to buy three-quarters of a pound of butter, might not this other article be supplied unless adequate methods were adopted to protect the public against fraud? The man behind the counter might deliver the "bosh" butter to a child, who had been sent by its parents to buy a pound of butter, and the child might put the difference of a few pence in the price of "bosh" butter and pure butter in its pocket. This was a proposal which came before the House without weight or authority. Sir Horace Plunkett had no doubt been attacked, but at all events nobody denied that he had the interest of Ireland at heart, and he signed the Report against the proposal in this Bill. The hon. Member for Devonport, who knew something of what he was talking about, and was now Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, also signed the Report, and his opinion was more worthy of the attention of the House than that of the hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly this was a grave and serious business. Margarine was now sold under an honest name. Men in Belgium and Germany—and he noticed that every fraud came from Germany—sent over here this "bosh" butter, and for the first time, Parliament, under the Liberal Government, was going to sanction a proposal to add 24 per cent. of water. He maintained that there was something unusual and remarkable in that, and no reason could be given for it in the attitude of the hon. Baronet. He could see nothing in the hon. Baronet's position in the House which entitled him to say that he had any authority behind this proposal, beyond that of the hon. Baronet himself.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

asked the, indulgence of the House to make an explanation. He had put a question to the hon. Baronet as to whether the Board of Agriculture would insist that it should be stated on the wrapper that this mixture contained 24 per cent. of water. He had received an affirmative nod. Thereupon he said: "I may take it that that is so," and then sat down without making any other observation. But the hon. Baronet's interpretation of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Louth had created considerable doubt in his mind as to what the meaning of that nod was. Might he put the question again and ask for a specific and favourable answer to it? Would the Department of Agriculture ensure that under Clause 8 the wrappers there spoken of would mention the fact that this mixture contained 24 per cent. of water?

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said he certainly meant that. He should not object to its being put in the Bill if it would improve it, but there was great difficulty in doing that. It might be done in another place.

MAJOR SEELY

said that if the hon. Baronet pledged himself on that point they had won their battle. Although they warmly applauded the efforts of the hon. Baronet to limit the trade in milk-blended butter, they suggested that he should go a step further and prohibit it altogether. It was ridiculous to contend that poor people were going to be robbed of a cheap butter. It was a fraud to sell butter and water as butter, and to charge for butter. The blend was made with very thin skim milk, which had passed through a collander, and of course the article was a fraud. If the hon. Baronet wanted a name for this mixture, which was made with the aid of the parish pump, he would suggest that it should be labelled, "Pumpine," and the statement added that it contained 24 per cent. of water. If that was done, nobody would buy it.

*MR ASHLEY

said that the hon. Member for Louth had drawn attention to the Report of the Select Committee signed by Sir Horace Plunkett and the Member for Devonport and other experts, but he wished to direct the attention of the House to the draft Report of the Chairman of the Butter Committee, the hon. Baronet in charge of this Hill, which sat last year. In that Report it was stated that, having regard to the price of milk-blended butter and the amount of water it contained, it was not a cheap article of food. Further, the Report went on to state that one trader had refused to sell milk-blended butter as he looked upon it as a fraudulent article, and that the introduction of that article into this country had had a demoralising effect upon the trade. The Report went on to say that if the sale of this article became general it would entail much inspection, and that it would have a prejudicial effect upon the public health. Therefore, he recommended that, in any legislation affecting the amount of water to be permitted in butter, no special exemption should be made in favour of milk-blended butter.

MR. S. T. EVANS

hoped the hon. Baronet would relent from the strong position which he had taken up. The hon. Baronet had not given any reason why he had changed the opinion he expressed last year. He had never heard the hon. Baronet speak with such force as he had done that day, and he could not understand why he had thrown so much spirit and eloquence into his speech. It was not enough to say that the article was of a very wholesome character; they had no right to sell it as butter when only one-half of it was butter and the other half water, and to charge the poor people for a pound of butter. The hon. Baronet had said that Clause 8 dealt with this matter. It did nothing of the kind. Again, the hon. Baronet had said that it was impossible to deal with this question now, and that it might be dealt with by the House of Lords. They did not want it to be dealt with by the House of Lords. He warned the hon. Baronet that he and his Government would be beaten unless it was stated clearly on the wrapper what the article really consisted of.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said he agreed.

MR. S. T. EVANS

said that the hon. Baronet seemed to be relenting. It should be clearly stated on the wrapper, not "such description of the article as may be approved by the Board," but some such words as these, "true definition of the article and of its ingredients." They should tell the common people how much milk and how much water was contained in the article, and unless some such words were inserted in the clause he should vote against it.

*MR. JOHN BURNS

said that it was plain that there was some misapprehension as to the effect of the clauses relating to the definition o[milk-blended butter. It was, therefore, necessary that this part should be made so clear as to prevent that misapprehension. He would deal with the way in which three edible compounds were now sold. There was butter, which could be bought at from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a pound. That was pure butter and was allowed to contain from 10 to 16 per cent. of water. Milk-blended butter sold for from 10d. to 1s. a pound and it contained 20 per cent. to 40 per cent., or it might be even 60 per cent. of milk or water. That was a state of things which no House of Commons could tolerate, and the object of this Bill was to prevent the fraud which so much moisture involved. In the artificial product, margarine, the same quantity of moisture was involved as in butter.

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

You are legalising adulteration.

*MR. JOHN BURNS

said he never believed that adulteration was a legitimate form of competition. Butter could not legally be sold with more than 16 per cent. of moisture; margarine could not be legally sold with more than 16 per cent. of moisture; but at this moment milk-blended butter, which was a wholesome product, if undesirable, contained 30, 40, or 50 per cent. of moisture. The object of the Bill was to prevent that fraud being perpetrated, to prevent so much moisture, and to protect the poor people who consumed this article and who wished for a cheap and wholesome substitute for butter. The grocers, the Chambers of Commerce, and the poor people would like butter if they could get it, or they would prefer margarine, but some classes of the people were inclined to buy milk-blended butter because it suited their pockets, however it affected their tastes. The Government were seeking to give the necessary protection, but it was obvious from the speeches of the hon. Member for North Louth and his hon. friend below the gangway, that some more protection should be given with regard to this milk-blended butter. Nobody had suggested, however, that it should be abolished, but everyone had agreed that some explanatory words should be applied in the Bill and the Government suggested certain words. They thought their words were better than those of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, as they had had a little more time in which to consider them. Clause 8 was the one which was descriptive of milk-blended butter and regulated its sale, and the Government proposed to introduce into it words which, while providing that it should be dealt with under such name or names as was or were, laid down by the Board of Agriculture, as in the case of margarine, the article should be delivered to the purchaser in a wrapper which in addition to the approved name and description of the article "shall set out the percentage of moisture contained therein." Those were the words they suggested. They thought "moisture" was better than "water."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said "water" was better than "moisture." If the right hon. Gentleman would make it water he would drop his opposition to the Bill.

*MR. JOHN BURNS

said they all wanted the same thing and the only difficulty was how to do it. The reason why the word "moisture" was adopted was that if one injected milk into butter it was not water; it was milk. If it would suit the hon. Member for North Louth they might insert both words "moisture" and "water" and then he thought all parties would be satisfied.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he would take that.

*MR, JOHN BURNS

said that with that concession, if the hon. Member was pleased to call it one, he thought this controversy might cease.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he would accept that, and would now say goodnight. [The hon. Member then left the House.]

SIR F. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

asked the President of the Local Government Board how he reconciled the logic of his hon. friend with his own proposed clause. They were enacting a 16 per cent. standard for margarine and a 16 per cent. standard for pure butter, but if the Government accepted the contention of his hon. friend, and if he was right to apply a different percentage to milk-blended butter, was not that to undercut the whole basis upon which this legislation as to pure butter and margarine had been worked? If they applied this principle of excusing the presence of an adulterant in a particular article, why should it not be applied in the case of the product of the honest farmer and of the manufacturer of margarine? There was, he submitted, no answer to that contention. It was a reductio ad absurdum. He thought the Government had taken a very wrong step in yielding to the representations of the trade, and they seemed to have acted upon some mistaken idea of the principles of free trade which they apparently thought consisted in allowing a man to buy what he liked. That was not free trade. The process which was used to bring about the product of milk-blended butter was used to disguise rancid butter, and then it was sold to the poorest class of people. It seemed a monstrous thing that they should have a Liberal Ministry and a Minister of light and leading giving effect to such a policy of fraud.

MR. SEDDON

said he was exceedingly sorry that the hon. Member for North Louth had withdrawn his opposition. If the amount of moisture in butter and margarine was 16 per cent. there was no reason why they should in this product of milk-blended butter give a margin of 24 per cent. He spoke with some knowledge of the grocery trade, as he spent sixteen years behind the counter, and his experience was that the honest trader was always the victim of the dishonest trader. While one sold butter the other sold margarine. The last Act was a protection to the honest trader and to the consumer. Then a production other than margarine was brought in. It was known as "mixture" and the public again were defrauded. The poor people, roughly speaking, were divided into two classes. There were the extremely poor, whose purchasing power was always regulated by their pocket, and they bought margarine because it was impossible to buy butter. But there was another class of the poor who had more delicate tastes, and they would buy a smaller quantity in order to get pure butter. That class required protection, and it was in the poorer districts that traders were enabled to use these milk-blended butters. He did not agree that what was on the wrapper should be the only notice, as it would only give power to tradesmen with money to advertise fancy names. They might, for instance, advertise "So and so's Fraudulene." Anyone who knew the grocery trade knew that the poor people did not buy their butter in pounds and half pounds, but in ounces and two ounces. He did not know what this mixture should be called, perhaps Tatcho. The provisions would give fradulent people a means of evading the law, because the article would be adulterated to the extent of 24 instead of 16 per cent. The Government were in fact going to see that a fraudulent substitute for butter was authorised.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

said if seemed to him that a great deal of bother was being made about a very small matter. The issue was whether there should be two kinds of butter, one containing more moisture than the other. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said he had a great objection to stopping it. What was the objection? The hon. Baronet said there was a trade for this milk-blended butter; that there was a demand for it; and therefore it ought to be allowed to go on. But the trade had arisen because they had allowed 30 and 40 per cent. of moisture to be added. No sooner had the hon. Baronet put on a limit than the trade would disappear. The objection of the hon. Baronet to do away with this trade had, therefore, no ground whatever. But there was another objection, which was that the public liked to buy this thing and, that being so, the House was asked why they should not be allowed to buy it. He did not see what good they did by allowing the public to buy butter which contained 8 per cent. more water than ordinary butter. Margarine was a different matter. No doubt it was a very good thing to grease bread with, but it was not butter. The hon. Baronet said that if the percentage of moisture was reduced to 16 per cent. this article would become butter. Then let it become butter. He also said that directly the moisture was limited to that which butter contained this trade would cease. Then let it cease. All this terminology and choice of terms was a mere waste of time and there was no good in it. It was said that if the limit was reduced to 16 percent. it would protect the butter industry. It was a curious thing that the House could not discuss anything now without the old bogey of free trade coming in; it was like King Charles' head. A certain percentage of moisture was good for butter. If that was 16 per cent. why have another butter of 24 per cent? The working classes did not want to buy butter with 8 per cent. more water in it than ordinary butter. As representing a working class constituency he said they did not want this water-blended butter; therefore let the House tackle the thing boldly at once by saying that they would not have it in any shape or form.

*MR. BARRIE

said he had hoped that even at the eleventh hour the legalising of a third article would have been dropped. The proposal of the hon. Baronet had met with no sympathy from any portion of the House. This proposal was entirely owing to two or three wealthy firms who had been able by vigorous lobbying during the last few months to get a certain amount of support for an article that was frandulent. Every agriculturist in the district which he represented protested against this privilege being given to an inferior article. He urged upon the House the fact that it was proved before the Committee that there was no legitimate demand for this article, and that its consumption was only 2½ per cent. as compared with that of butter altogether apart from margarine. No part of the community would suffer if this new article was made to conform to the 16 per cent. standard. On the contrary it would only ensure necessary precautions against a few ingenious manufacturers who had succeeded in amassing large fortunes at the cost of the public, by pushing this article off on the average consumer, who was least able to protect himself. All the heads of the Agricultural Departments had spoken strongly against the legalisation of this article. They had been reminded that afternoon that the agriculturists were practically unanimous against it, and the late chief of the English Agricultural Department, the late Mr, Hanbury, carried the Committee over which he presided unanimously with him against giving facilities for the sale of this article. They must, therefore, assume that those responsible for the butter industry of the country were absolutely undivided in their opinion that this faked article should not be placed in the hands of the people. He therefore asked the House to vote in favour of the Amendment to make the standard 16 per cent. He was aware that he was asking them to give the death blow to this article by so doing, but they would not do justice to the consumer if they did not do so.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd - George, Carnarvon Boroughs)

said the hon. Member had suggested that this was the result of the operations of some great syndicate outside, but the hon. Member must have overlooked the fact that there was a Committee which sat last year, and went into this matter, and that Committee had actually recommended the provision which was in the Bill. The names of the Committee who made that recommendation were the hon Member for Rye—

MR. ASHLEY

He doss not agree with the 24 per cent.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he understood that the decision was arrived at unanimously. Another Member of the Committee was the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, who took a leading part in fighting this matter, and there were two or three Members of the Irish Nationalist Party, and the result was a unanimous report of the Committee who had heard the evidence on the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bolton that the only thing the public wanted to know was what they were buying. If they wanted to buy water in the butter, so long as there was a percentage of water fixed they were entitled to know what that percentage was. He also agreed that once these facts were substantiated as to the percentage of water the public were buying and the limitation of the percentage of water fixed by the Bill, it would be hardly worth while to continue to manufacture. But so long as the public knew what they were buying that was all that was required. The Government were carrying out impartially the recommendations of the Committee which represented all interests and heard all the evidence. He trusted the House would now see its way to come to a decision. The question had been well thrashed out. If the Amendment was carried he must point out that the Government could not proceed with the Bill for the simple reason that the clause represented a very fair compromise which had been arrived at and accepted by the fanners and the Chambers of Agriculture. The Chambers of Agriculture representing the farmers of the country had accepted the Bill as a compromise, and if the Amendment was carried the hon. Member opposite who moved it would have to take the responsibility for it; This was the third attempt that had been made to deal with the problem. Unionist Governments had twice attempted to deal with it, and owing to the difficulty of adjusting conflicting interests their attempts broke down. This was a Bill that had been accepted by the Committee, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to destroy the Bill it must be clearly understood that the responsibility rested with hon. Members and not with the Government. The Government would oppose the Amendment in order to save the Bill. He hoped the House would now come to a decision.

MR. FLAVIN

said he fully recognised the compromise that had been made, but he would have much preferred it if the Government had placed milk-blended butter on the same footing as margarine, because milk-blended butter was a strong competitor of Irish butter. He also admitted that it was sold to-day with an unlimited amount of water in it. He did not say the Government had gone as far as they could, but they certainly had taken a step in the right direction to bring the dishonesty of the trade under control. That being so, he suggested as a compromise that the Government should reduce the percentage from 24 to 20 per cent.; that would be a step in the right direction.

MR. GILHOOLY (Cork County, W.)

said he could not understand the attitude of his hon. friend who said there was a compromise. Who were the parties to the compromise? As a representative of an agricultural constituency he was strongly in favour of the Amendment and absolutely against any compromise which would perpetuate a fraud on the poorest of the poor. A deputation from the South of Ireland waited on the hon. Baronet who was responsible for the Bill, and that deputation distinctly told the hon. Baronet that they would rather the Bill was lost than that this fraud should be perpetuated. He should vote for the Amendment because milk-blended butter was a fraud upon the poor, who thought they were getting good butter when, as a matter of fact, they were getting a mixture containing 24 per cent. of water.

MR. THOMPSON (Somersetshire, E.)

said that he had received a communication from a body of agricultural councils in the district from which he came, saying they could not support the Bill as it stood and asking him to vote against it.

MR. C. E. PRICE (Edinburgh, Central)

asked whether if the Government conceded the 16 per cent. limit on this butter, hon. Members opposite representing Ireland would support a Motion for placing Irish firkin butter on the same footing. Irish firkin butter at the present time contained more than 16 per cent. of moisture, and therefore if Hon. Members opposite voted for limiting the percentage of moisture in milk-blended butter to 16 per cent. they must also support a Motion that Irish firkin butter should contain no more. The hon. Baronet had made a great concession and had said that every packet must have marked upon it the fact that the article contained 24 per cent of water, that it was not sold as butter, and that if it was sold under a name which was not associated in any way with butter there could not be any fraud in it. He pointed out that a great deal of process or renovated butter was imported into this country from America. The butter was usually lacking in colour and flavour, and under American law had to bear the mark of renovated butter. That mark was removed directly the butter came into the United Kingdom, and the butter known as milk-blended butter was the same article with its mark taken off. Unless this Bill was accepted that thing would be allowed to continue. The Bill regulated the sale and allowed an article with a limited percentage of water to be placed upon the market.

MR. SEDDON

asked whether he was to understand that any quantity, whether it was an ounce or a pound, would have a wrapper upon it giving all the information?

*MR. JOHN BURNS

Yes.

MR. BOWLES

said he did not see that in the Bill.

*MR. JOHN BURNS

said the words were in Clause 8, which stated that a butter substitute shall be dealt with under the conditions applicable to the sale of margarine— With this modification that in any case where, in order to comply with those conditions, the article is delivered to the purchaser in a wrapper, there shall, in addition to the approved name, be printed on the wrapper in such manner as the Board approve, such description of the article as may be approved by the Board.

MR. BOWLES

said that only applied to cases where the article was delivered in a wrapper, but what about the cases where it was not necessary to put it into a wrapper. This article would be sold by the ounce and in very small quantities, by the pennyworth and so forth, and in order to comply with the conditions of the Bill it was not in the least necessary, where a small quantity was asked for, to give a wrapper at all. It was trifling with the House to suggest that this was any compromise whatever.

MR. FLAVIN

They cannot take it away in their hands. They might take it away, but they would have to have a wrapper to take it away in.

MR. BOWLES

said he did not wish to raise any difficulty and if the right hon. Gentleman could show that the wrapper would be supplied in every case he would sit down at once. If he could not, then he could only say that the whole thing was a sham.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said a plain question was asked by an hon. Gentleman below the gangway as to whether it was the fact that this article would be enclosed in wrappers. The right hon. Gentleman explicitly and in terms replied that every portion sold would be contained in a wrapper. His hon. friend the Member for Norwood pointed out that there was not in the Hill a single security that milk-blended butter would be contained in wrappers, and when the right hon. Gentleman was asked for a clause in the Bill which showed that, he pointed to a clause which had no relation to it at all. He did not understand that small quantities were to be sold in wrappers.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said that such wrappers were provided for in the Margarine Act.

MR. F. E. SMITH

read the 6th section of the Margarine Act, and said he confessed he did not see the precise effect of "with a paper wrapper," and "in a paper wrapper." Was it to be delivered with a paper wrapper, and not in a paper wrapper?

Question put.

MR. URE

moved, in Clause 5, after the word "imported" to insert the words "bearing the same mark or description." The reason for the Amendment was that three times the price might sometimes be changed.

The House divided:—Ayes, 22; Noes, 133. (Division List No. 329.)

AYES.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Duckworth, James	Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton
Bowerman, C. W.	Forster, Henry William	Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gilhooly, James	Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Gretton, John	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Tellers for the Ayes—Sir
Crean, Eugene	Paulton, James Mellor	Francis Lowe and MR. Hugh
Dalrymple, Viscount	Pease.Herbert Pike'(Darlington	Barrie.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Brien.Kendal(Tipperary Mid)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Higham, John Sharp	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Hobart, Sir Robert	O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)
Astbury, John Meir	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Hogan, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)
Balfour Robert (Lanark)	Horninan, Emslie John	Pickersgill. Edward Hare
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Hudson, Walter	Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)
Barnes, G. N.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Raphael, Herbert H.
Beauchamp, E.	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton
Bellairs, Carlyon	Jenkins, J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Jones.Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea)	Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradford
Boland, John	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Branch, James	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)	Russell, T. W.
Brigg, John	Joyce, Michael	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brunner.J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)	Kilbride, Denis	Seaverns, J. H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Seddon, J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Lewis, John Herbert	Seely, Major J. B.
Cheetham, John Frederick	LloydGeorge, Rt. Hon. David	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Clough, William	Lundon, W.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Collins,SirWm.J. (S.Pancras.W.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Corbett,C.H.(Sussex.,E.Grinst'd	Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs	Strachey. Sir Edward
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cox, Harold	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Thompson. J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Cremer, Sir William Randal	MaeVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.	Torrance. Sir A. M.
Cullinan, J.	M'Kean, John	Toulmin. George
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Ure, Alexander
Delany, William	M'Killop, W.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Devlin, Joseph	Maddison, Frederick	Wardle, George J.
Duffy, William J.	Marks.G. Croydon (Launceston)	Wason.John Cathcart (Orkney)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Marnham, F. J.	Waterlow, D. S.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Meagher, Michael	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Elibank, Master of	Meehan, Patrick A.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Everett, R. Lacey	Menzies, Walter	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Findlay, Alexander	Mond, A.	Whitehead, Rowland
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Montgomery, H. G.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Gladstone.Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn	Morrell. Philip	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Yoxall, James Henry
Grant, Corrie	Murnaghan, George
Halpin, J.	Myer, Horatio	Tellers for the Noes—Mr.
Hammond, John	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)	Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r	Pease.
Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph
Hedges, A. Paget	Norton, Capt. Cecil William

It was found that as a matter of practice some mark was always put on butter showing that it came from the same source and was, therefore, of the same quality. This provision protected the man against whom the complaint was brought from being mulcted in three times the value of each consignment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 6, after the word import to insert the words bearing the same mark or description."—(Mr. Ure.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. URE

moved after the word "laboratories" to insert the words ''or if the person who made the analysis be called as a witness, the evidence of that person." The Amendment simply made it quite clear that not only would the certificate be treated as evidence, but the man who made the analysis might also be called to give evidence.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 12, after the word 'laboratories,' to insert the words 'or if the person who made the analysis be called as a witness, the evidence of that person.'"—(Mr. Ure.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

thought that the clause altered the practice which had generally been adopted with regard to legal proceedings. As he understood the clause, the certificate of the principal chemist in itself raised a presumption of guilt against the accused person. As a rule a person was supposed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty, but he thought that under this clause, as proposed to be amended, the accused person would not be allowed to defend himself by cross-examining the chemist as to the statements in his certificate unless he gave a certain notice, and deposited a certain amount in court to pay the expenses of the person who had given the certificate. He thought that was hardly a right state for the law to be in.

*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now dealing with a matter which comes on later under another Amendment by the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he did not see the necessity of the words proposed. Could the principal chemist depute the analysis to some other person?

MR. URE

said the evidence of one witness would be sufficient to secure a conviction. As the law stood at present the certificate of the analyst was sufficient, and therefore the evidence of the analyst ought to be sufficient.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. URE

said that as the Bill stood it was left optional to the Court to allow the evidence of the analyst to be taken or not. That was thought to be giving too much discretion to the Court, and accordingly he moved an Amendment leaving to the defendent the option of calling the analyst, provided that he deposited a sum sufficient to cover the reasonable expenses of the analyst. This proposal would remove all doubt as to whether when the certificate was produced or the analyst gave his evidence the justice or the sheriff would be bound to convict. The words he proposed were the same as those which occurred in the Food and Drugs Act and the Margarine Act, and they left it to the Court to convict or acquit in the first instance on the analysis.

Amended proposed— In page 4, to leave out lines 16 to 21, and to insert the words, 'and the defendant shall not be entitled to require the person who made the analysis to be called as a witness unless he shall, at least three clear days before the return day, give notice to the prosecutor that he requires his attendance, and deposit with the prosecutor a sum sufficient to cover the reasonable costs and expenses of his attendance, which costs and expenses shall be paid by the defendant in the event of his conviction.'"—(MR. Ure)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said this proposal altered the existing state of things, because, as a rule a person he had a perfect right to examine and cross-examine all the witnesses for the prosecution before there was any presumption of guilt raised against him. The certificate alone raised a presumption that the man was guilty before he had had any opportunity of defending himself, and he would only be able to cross-examine after giving notice and paying-all the expenses of the attendance of the analyst. That was something which contravened every principle of English law and justice to which they had been accustomed in the past.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said he was afraid that his hon. friend had not fully appreciated this Amendment. Upon the strict words of the clause there might be some doubt as to whether, on the production of the evidence provided for, it was conclusive proof by reason of insufficient evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. URE

moved the omission of Subsection 5. This was inserted in Committee in opposition to the Government. The subsection would give an appeal on matters of fact as well as of law. That was altogether contrary to the Customs code, which gave an appeal only on matters of law, and, moreover, it was altogether inapplicable to Scotland and Ireland. The subsection would introduce an undesirable precedent if allowed to stand. It dealt exclusively with England and was inapplicable to Ireland and Scotland. Where the prosecutors were the Commissioners of Customs, he did not think it was desirable that there should be an appeal on questions of fact from the Court of first instance.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, to leave out Subsection (5).

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Words omitted accordingly.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

had standing in his name the following Amendment:— In page 4, line 34, at end to insert—'(b) For prohibiting the use as a preservative in milk of any substance specified in such regulations, or for prescribing the substances which may be used for such purpose in milk, or cream, or in the manufacture of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine, or for limiting the extent to which either generally, or as regards any particular substance or substances, preservatives may be used in milk or cream, or in the manufacture or sale of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine. Provided that as regards regulations made under subsection (b) hereof the expression "Local Government Board" shall be substituted for "Board of Agriculture" in section four of the said Act of 1899, and in the application of this section to Scotland "the Local Government Board" means the Local Government Board for Scotland.'

*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

said the Amendment as it stood was not in order, being beyond the scope of the Bill.

MR. COCHRANE

said he understood that the Local Government Board would be prepared to accept the Amendment in a different form.

*MR. JOHN BURNS

said that the Board would be quite willing to accept the Amendment in substance.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 34, at end to insert—'(b) For prohibiting the use as a preservative of any substance specified in such regulations in the manufacture of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine, or for limiting the extent to which either generally, or as regards any particular substance or substances, preservatives may be used in the manufacture or sale of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine. Provided that as regards regulations made under subsection (b) hereof the expression "Local Government Board" shall be substituted for "Board of Agriculture" in section four of the said Act of 1899, and in the application of this section to Scotland "the Local Government Board" means the Local Government Board for Scotland."'—(MR. John Burns.)

*THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER

So far as I can see that is in order.

Question proposed, "That, those words be there inserted in the Bill."

SIR EDWIN CORNWALL

said he strongly objected to an Amendment being introduced in this slipshod manner. If the President of the Local Government Board and the hon. Member opposite had agreed upon the Amendment, it could have been made in another place. He did not see the representative of the Board of Agriculture present. That Board had not too many friends in the House, and he thought it ought to be protected against the Local Government Board.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said the words of the Amendment had boon agreed to by the Board of Agriculture. It was the desire of the representative of the Board not to send too many Amendments to another place.

MR. COCHRANE

said he willingly accepted the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said that on behalf of the legal profession he begged to thank the Government for introducing this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4. line 35, to leave out Subsection (2)"—(MR. Cochrane.)

Question, "That Subsection (2) stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 39, to leave out from the word 'describes,' to end of clause, and insert the words 'it by any name other than "margarine" or a name combining the word "margarine" with a fancy or other descriptive name approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and printed in type not larger than the word "margarine," he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. S. T. EVANS

moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert after the word "than" in the fourth line the words "and in the same colour as." He said the object of that Amendment was very simple. Unless the words were inserted, it would be possible to print one word prominently and another word so faintly that the object which his hon. friend had in view would not be met.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— In line 4 after the word 'than' to insert the words 'and in the same colour as.'"—(MR. Evans.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill, agreed to.

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said that if this new form of butter was to be legalised, it was very desirable that it should be known by a distinctive name for if they were to have a great variety of names for it. the public would be sure to be confused and deceived. Already several names had been suggested, such as "Liberalissimo," "Perfecto," "Pumpine." It would be quite impossible for the public to identity under this great variety of names what they were really purchasing. Therefore he moved to omit the words" or names."

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 9, to leave out the words 'or names.'''—(Sir Francis Lowe.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or names' stand part of the Bill."

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said that he understood the hon. Member's desire was that there should be one generic name for this article, instead of each person who made it being allowed to give it a name approved by the Board of Agriculture. He did not see what objection there could be to the proposal in the Bill as it stood. The position taken up in Clause 8 was that the article should be sold on its merits. Supposing a firm of the name of Pearks spent a large sum of money in advertising their manufacture, it would not be right that another manufacturer should have the advantage of Pearks' advertisement.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he could not follow the argument of the hon. Baronet. If milk-blended butter was to be sold as Pearks' butter, it should be stated that it contained, say, 24 per cent. of water.

MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)

asked, on a point of order, whether an hon. Member was allowed to make free with the name of another hon. Member by way of illustration?

SIR F. BANBURY

said that if the Amendment of his hon. friend was not adopted, and if Jones, Burns, or somebody else of somewhere else were allowed to give different names to this manufactured article, people would not know in the least what they were buying.

MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)

thought the best way was to give the article a specific name, otherwise they might have the article sold under a score of different names in every town and village.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said that if every tradesman was allowed to choose a separate fancy name for this article, which was not butter, the public would certainly not have the same security as they had in the case of a substance, such as margarine, which was known by one name only

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 43. (Division List No. 330.)

AYES.
Abraham. William (Cork, N.E.)	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Beauchamp, E.	Byles, William Pollard
Alden, Percy	Bellairs, Carlyon	Clough, William
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Berridge, T. H. D.	Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W
Astbury, John Meir	Branch, James	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Brigg, John	Cooper, G. J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Paulton, James Mellor
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Joyce, Michael	Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)
Cox, Harold	Kilbride, Denis	Raphael, Herbert H.
Crean, Eugene	King, Alfred John (Knutsford	Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson.SirG.Scott Bradf'rd
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Delany, William	Lundon, W.	Russell, T. W.
Devlin, Joseph	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dewar, Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Seely. Major J. B.
Duckworth, James	Mac Veagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.	Sdipman, Dr. John G.
Elibank, Master of	M'Kean, John	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Evans, Samuel T.	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Strachey, Sir Edward
Everett, R. Lacey	M'Killop, W.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Findlay, Alexander	Maddison, Fre 'erick	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset.E.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Marks.G. Croydon (Launceston	Toulmin, George
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Marnham, F. J.	Ure, Alexander
Gardner,Col. Alan (Hereford.S.	Meagher, Michael	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Meehan, Patrick A.	Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan
Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John	Menzies, Walter	Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)
Halpin, J.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Waterlow, D. S.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Hayden, John Patrick	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Whitehead, Rowland
Hedges, A. Paget	Murnaghan, George	Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)
Higham, John Sharp	Myer, Horatio	Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Hobart, Sir Robert	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hogan, Michael	Nolan, Joseph	Yoxall, James Henry
Horniman, Emslie John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid	Tellers for the. Ayes—Mr.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Pease.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
NOES.
Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F.	Duffy, William J.	Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington
Ashley, W. W.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH.	Forster, Henry William	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Barnes, G. N.	Gilhooly, James	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Bowerman, C. W.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gretton, John	Seddon, J.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harwood, George	Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)
Brunner.J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Starkey, John R.
Cavendish,Rt. Hon.VictorC.W.	Helme, Norval Watson	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hudson, Walter	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jenkins, J.	Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)
Cheetham. John Frederick	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Mond, A.
Cory, Clifford John	Montgomery, H. G. James	Tellers for the Noes—Sir
Cullinan, J.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Francis Lowe and Sir
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Parker, James (Halifax)	Frederick Banbury.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY,

in accordance with a former undertaking, moved to insert in the clause the words "setting out the percentage of moisture or water contained therein."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, to leave out lines 18 to 21."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. BOWLES

said this was a most unfit Amendment, especially after the proposed new clause had been rejected.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 23, to leave out the words 'as milk-blended butter or.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

Amendment agreed to.

*SIR FRANCIS LOWE

moved to insert at the end of Clause 9 (Penalties for offences):—"(3) An invoice describing an article as butter shall be deemed to be a sufficient written warranty that such article is pure butter, and shall be available as a defence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act,1875, subject to the further provisions of Section 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899." He thought that the additional penalties imposed by this Bill rendered it desirable that the defence of warranty by invoice should be allowed. It was already allowed under other Acts of Parliament, and having regard to the fact that the retailer was called upon to guarantee to his customers that the articles he sold to them were pure and what he described them to be, it seemed only right that he should receive a like warranty from the wholesale dealer from whom he bought them. It was contended by the promoters of the Bill that the retailer, after he had received the goods in bulk from the wholesale dealer; for instance a keg of butter, might break bulk and split it up into small quantities, and after having done that he might easily adulterate it without its being possible to detect the fraud on his part and bring it home to him. But they had no right to assume that the whole of the retailers of butter were fraudulent people, and that they would be more likely to adulterate their goods than the wholesale dealers from whom they purchased. And, after all, the wholesale dealer was quite sufficiently protected under the sections of the Food and Drugs Acts referred to in the Amendment, and taken in conjunction with the provisions of those Acts, the implied warranty, which he proposed the invoice should be, would be perfectly innocuous and would do justice to all persons concerned.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

seconded. He thought if the invoice described the article as butter that should be sufficient.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 9, at the end to insert the words' '(31) An invoice describing an article as butter shall be deemed to be a sufficient written warranty that such article is pure butter, and shall be available as a defence under The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, subject to the further provisions of section twenty of The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899.' "—(Sir Francis Lowe.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said that the Amendment was plausible in its character, and personally he was in sympathy with it if it could be carried out without doing injury to any one. He pointed out, however, that the proper place for it was the Food and Drugs Act of 1899, but the late Government had absolutely refused to give effect to it. The suggestion was that, when a man was prosecuted by an inspector for selling adulterated butter, which he had adulterated himself in his own back premises, he should escape by producing the invoice as a warranty. What the hon. Member was asking for was that the invoice should be a warranty which should relieve the man who received it from any obligation at all. If he were prosecuted for selling adulterated butter he would go before the magistrates and say, "I had this stuff invoiced to me, and this invoice therefore is my warranty that it is perfectly pure." It might be said that it was a ridiculous thing to think that a man could go into a police court, and because he could say that he had had an invoice sent him, or even a warranty, he would be able to escape scot free. He would quote what he know actually happened as regarded farmers. At the present moment farmers were unable to sell their milk unless able to give a warranty to the man who took it that the milk was pure. Milk was sent to a big centre and was bought by a middleman who would sell it to another man. The third man who bought it from the middleman adulterated the milk and he was prosecuted. He was brought up at the police court where he at once produced his warranty that the milk was pure milk, and said that he had sold it as he had received it. It was impossible to prove that the man had not sold it as he received it, and the consequence was that the magistrate dismissed the summons against the retailer, and a summons was then issued by the local authority against the farmer who gave a warranty with the milk. The farmer was then brought into court, and there was the greatest complaint in the agricultural districts regarding this. The farmers was fined by the magistrate for having adulterated the milk although it was adulterated after it had left his possession, and he was held to be liable although it had passed through several hands. If the Amendment were carried it would have exactly the same effect, that was to say, the retailer would be dismissed although he adulterated the butter, and the wholesale man would be prosecuted exactly the same as the farmer was prosecuted in respect of his milk, although he no more than the farmer had been guilty of adulteration. Therefore he thought the House would see the extreme difficulty of dealing with this matter. On the other hand, the retail grocer had the matter entirely in his own hands. He had the good invoiced as pure butter if he insisted on it, and he was perfectly protected in that matter. All he had to say to the wholesaler was that he refused to take the goods unless a proper invoice was given covering the warranty. On the other hand, what the hon. Member proposed was that the man who gave the invoice should be made responsible for the article whatever the conditions might be after it left his hands. Surely that would not be a proper state of things. Let them look at the matter from the point of view of the agriculturist who certainly considered he was under an absolute injustice that after goods had left his hands he should be held responsible. He could not help thinking that the wholesale man who sold butter to small retailers would be put in an equally unfair position. The wholesale merchant simply invoiced so much butter without giving a warranty for it, and he would run the risk of being haled before a magistrate as the farmer at the present moment was, and of being held up as a criminal for something he had never done. On these grounds alone it would be doing a great injustice to wholesale butter sellers to require an invoice to be deemed a warranty. On the other hand, it was perfectly open to the retailers to require an invoice showing that it was pure butter and they were perfectly well protected.

MR. MOND (Chester)

said he wished to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division. He could not say that he felt altogether convinced by the speech of the hon. Baronet who represented the Board of Agriculture. The grievance which had been raised was a serious one to a large number of small retailers, who were not in such a good position to obtain warranties as the hon. Baronet tried to make out. A great deal of his argument seemed to be based on an entire fallacy, because the object of the Amendment was really to make the invoice and the warranty one document instead of having an invoice and a warranty. Many small traders did not realise that an invoice was not a warranty. The inspector came down and seized some of their butter, and they were taken before the magistrate and fined, though perfectly innocent of the fact that the butter was not up to the standard it ought to have been. Of course a careful man with experience asked for a warranty besides the invoice. The evil consequences which might happen to the wholesale trader, and which did happen to the farmer, were not a question of invoice or warranty, but a question of warranty entirely. The hon. Baronet said that the farmer now gave a warranty, and on that warranty he was hauled up in some mysterious manner and fined for sending out milk which he said was not adulterated. The farmer, however, would have a simple remedy by sending out samples, and he could go into Court and prove that he did not adulterate the milk. The farmer was certainly much better able to prove whether or not the article he had sold to the retailer was adulterated or not. The picture of the retailer getting a firkin of butter and sitting in the back garden adulterating it and then saying he had not adulterated it was a little overdrawn. What frequently happened was that the small retailer, who was not experienced in the law of warranty, had stuff palmed off upon him or her by the unscrupulous wholesaler, who would not send it to an experienced firm. He thought that the argument that they ought not to make a change in respect of one article was no argument at all. If they never began on anything they would never get very far. Let them make a beginning with butter. In spite of the reply of the Government, he hoped they would think better of it, and if his hon. friend went to a division he for one would certainly support him.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said he remembered in 1899, when the Sale of Food and Drugs Act was passed, he was at the Local Government Board, and he presided over the Select Committee which inquired into the subject. At that time this question caused a great deal of friction and difficulty. The Local Government Board of the day stated a question for the opinion of the London Police Magistrates namely, whether an invoice made into a warranty would have any serious effect upon the working of the Act. The opinion of the Local Government Board of that day, based on the opinion of the Chief Magistrate, was that it would have a very prejudicial effect on the law, and the Government refused in the Act of 1899, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon was responsible, to make an invoice a warranty, and he thought they were well advised. They knew that a great deal of fraud went on simply because many local authorities could not be got to act, and the result would be that if the Amendment were carried the administration of the Act would be very difficult, for the local authorities would be encouraged in giving the go-bye to prosecutions, because they would not go miles and miles outside their own areas to find the person who supplied the butter.

Amendment negatived.